As the Colorado Independent’s Joseph Boven reports:
The Colorado Senate killed a bill that would have established a legal limit in Colorado to the amount of THC drivers can have in their system. Lawmakers on the right and left who voted against the bill felt they were attempting to make policy without adequate information. House Bill 1261, sponsored in the Senate by Grand Junction Republican Steve King, died 20 nays to 15 ayes.
Sens King and Lakewood Democrat Betty Boyd argued in favor of an Appropriations Committee’s decision to reinstate the bill’s original language, which created a THC limit of 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. That move failed to satisfy. The Senate chose instead to vote on a version based on a Judiciary Committee report that said the science was not yet strong enough to support imposing a nanogram limits on marijuana users. They then voted the bill down.
“Some on the Senate Judiciary members got bamboozled by marijuana users who don’t want to see any limits,” King said.
Be that as it may, it seems a legitimate question arose about the persistence of the active ingredient in marijuana, Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, at detectable but not intoxicating levels in a medical user’s bloodstream. The objection that ultimately killed this bill, as we understand it, was not a lack of desire to keep the roads safe from intoxicated drivers, but whether or not the standard set in the bill would prevent even people who haven’t smoked pot a considerable period of time, thus presumably quite safe to do so, from legally driving.
As the Independent’s Boven continues, this argument proved compelling to none other than arch-conservative Sen. Kevin Lundberg of Loveland–who, if you haven’t heard, has some documented trouble understanding (or at least accepting) scientific principles.
Lundberg said he had learned that medical marijuana was not like alcohol and that marijuana remained much longer in the system. He said lawmakers might be impeding on patient rights unnecessarily.
“To say that you can use [marijuana] but you can not drive ever-we have to be very careful when we go down that road,” Lundberg said.
Way to look at the science instead of knee-jerk presumptions, Senator Lundberg! While you’re on this newfound end-of-session reasonableness kick, let’s talk carbon dioxide.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: The realist
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
BY: Phoenix Rising
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Rep. Joe Neguse Still The Hardest Working Dem In D.C.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Big props to Sen. Lundberg.
Lundberg has a wide libertarian streak that usually ends at drugs, but the testimony (actually smoking test) by the westword’s mmj columnist showed how weak the science was.
Personally I am troubled by per se laws which punish a “state” and not “conduct”.
For those smokers out there: It is still illegal to drive under the influence of weed, it just isn’t defined by the numbers what is “under the influence” so be careful.
these things always strike me as needless fights brought for nothing other than politics. If you can’t pass a sobriety test, you shouldn’t be driving. I don’t care if it’s because of liquor, weed, NyQuil, it doesn’t matter.
Like texting and driving. It’s been illegal for quite some time to drive while distracted. Guess what you were charged with in 2005 if you caused an accident while screwing around with your phone. Here’s a hint: It wasn’t nothing.
For the record, I’m not a fan of weed. I barely tolerate MMJ, but democracy means not always getting what you want. I’m also PAINFULLY aware of the consequences of driving while under the influence. Still think the bill is dumb.
setting a very bad precedent
When did these people get it in their heads that having and understanding facts are requisite for making policy? Sine Die immediately, these folks are exhausted and beginning to hallucinate.
From a press release today:
So, we should immediately outlaw alcohol as it has killed millions of people. AND we need to go after all these doctors that have over prescribed Oxycontin and Percocet.
By his own admission he is failing at protecting Coloradoans and he should be fired immediately.
“He nearly caused that accident by driving too slowly and the dog barely got away”.
They wanted to cultivate another market but banning cell phones would have been too much.
Who’d a thunk that common sense would prevail in any American legislative setting these days?
Setting an arbitrary THC level that is not based on proof of inabilty to drive would just be a back door way of limiting marijuana use. That’s the kind of thing they do in Utah about DUI levels. Congratulations to our legislators who used discretion and common sense.
Hell weather forecast: freezing.
Speaking of people that don’t feel compelled to let science factor into their decision making…
Bamboozled.
(I’ve always dug the dapper look of the dude with the Panama Hat on boxes of Bambu rolling papers. Now, he looks like the sort who could bamboozle the shorts off of someone.)
I may have just found a way to make my fortune.